I don't think he would have taken 5 states (Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida) without the financial crisis. And that would have put him at 278.
Considering that we are in the midst of a major economic crisis and two wars, a 53-46 victory isn't that impressive.
And as for the "voter surge" that was supposed to carry Obama into office? Didn't happen.
Despite widespread predictions of record turnout in this year's presidential election, roughly the same portion of eligible voters cast ballots in 2008 as in 2004. Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004, according to a voting analysis by American University political scientist Curtis Gans, an authority on voter turnout. He estimated that between 126.5 million and 128.5 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, versus 122.3 million four years ago. Gans said the gross number of ballots cast in 2008 was the highest ever, even though the percentage was not substantially different from 2004, because there were about 6.5 million more people registered to vote this time around..... In 2004, turnout was 6 percentage points higher than in 2000. But Gans said he believed it did not spike more this year because fewer Republicans went to the polls. While it may be premature to draw conclusions, Gans said, it appeared that Republican voting declined 1.3 points, to 28.7 percent of the electorate, while Democratic turnout rose from 28.7 percent to 31.3 percent of the electorate.
Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004, according to a voting analysis by American University political scientist Curtis Gans, an authority on voter turnout.
He estimated that between 126.5 million and 128.5 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, versus 122.3 million four years ago. Gans said the gross number of ballots cast in 2008 was the highest ever, even though the percentage was not substantially different from 2004, because there were about 6.5 million more people registered to vote this time around.....
In 2004, turnout was 6 percentage points higher than in 2000. But Gans said he believed it did not spike more this year because fewer Republicans went to the polls. While it may be premature to draw conclusions, Gans said, it appeared that Republican voting declined 1.3 points, to 28.7 percent of the electorate, while Democratic turnout rose from 28.7 percent to 31.3 percent of the electorate.
In Ohio, the 2008 turnout was actually lower than in 2004. Republicans stayed home. The GOP lost this race, Obama did not win it.
This having been said, I'll be pleased if Obama follows through on two of the things that have popped up in the last few days as things he wants to address: 1) tackling off shore tax evasion, and 2) renegotiating the KORUS trade agreement to protect the US auto industry from a flood of cheap Korean imports.
We'll see if he follows through. Choosing Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff was not a good omen. This is the guy that forced NAFTA through Congress and cost the Democrats the Congress in 1994. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Obama doesn't yet have a solid ideological base. He has the netroots and most of the minorities, but he's on probation with the Indies and the 'moderate' Republicans.
The fact that McCain/Palin got as much support as they did means his lead is fragile, and there are still plenty of people convinced he's going to rain socialism on them and sell the US to Iraq or Cuba.
1) Neo-liberals. These are the people who are GOP because they have money and they want to make sure that policies favor them. They want free trade, free markets, and no regulation. They adore Grover Norquist.
2)The Christian Right. These are the bible thumpers. God, gays, and guns get them going, but they are often less reliable on the economic issues. They tend to come from lower income groups than the neo-liberals.
I think that it's the latter group that swung this election.
First, I think that a lot of them simply didn't show up. Second, I think that a significant number switched to Obama, the test of that would be the exit poll data.
Remember 1994. Obama has this tendency to drift right over time, trying to drag voters with him. Don't get me wrong, there are some very good signs coming out of the Obama administration right now.
Minorities have always voted for Democrats disproportionately.
Roman Catholics are the real swing demographic.
I haven't had the chance to look through exit polls.
School work.... And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Also, they are becoming more numerous... Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Ohio doesn't really have very many black people, so I'm not sure if it would've swung things much there. Obama won working-class whites in Ohio and came within 6 points of the overall white vote. So there were obviously enough black folks in Cleveland to flip it, but it really didn't require much. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Similarly, the non-white vote made up a larger share -- 22% vs ~18% blacks+Latinos, if I'm not mistaken -- and, again, went much heavier for Obama than Kerry. A 9-point jump in the Dems' share of blacks is the difference between winning and losing in NC (he probably would've won Virginia anyway as it wasn't really close), but a jump from 53% of Latinos for Kerry to 70% for Obama makes a huge difference in the Southwest, as well as in Florida, where Obama took a much higher share of the Cuban vote than Democrats normally carry (35% vs ~20% that Dems usually get).
I think Professor Gans, like most of his colleagues at AU, needs a math lesson, because a three-point spread on party ID with Obama taking a 8-point lead among Indies would not be sufficient to produce a 7-point spread when both McCain and Obama took basically 90/10 spreads with their own parties. It would've been more like a 3-point spread under his assumptions. I'm curious to know how he created this breakdown on party ID when so many states -- mine, for example -- don't register by party.
Erm, not so much. In Ohio's case, that's true. (You're again being plagued by your insistence that only middle-aged, working-class white people in small towns in the Rust Belt "count," while the rest of us don't matter. Setting aside the fact that it isn't even true -- Obama won those people too -- it's quite silly.)
In the cases of the regions where I told you we'd win this thing, not even close (see here vs here). Turnout was way up in the West and the Upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico.
In less important states: Florida was up quite a bit. Georgia was way, way up (and that was the difference between a 17-point loss and a 5-point loss).
Again, don't confuse quantity vs quality. Saying "Turnout didn't go up nationwide, thus it didn't matter" is akin to looking at GDP figures without digging into employment, wages, and other indicators that tell you what's really happening on the ground. Turnout in the aggregate didn't skyrocket, but turnout changes vs 2004 were spread quite unevenly across the country, and that made an enormous difference. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
